Tuesday, August 27, 2013

Collapse Of The Temple (part 3)

As he “channels” and calls the prophet Jeremiah to the mind
of the people of Jerusalem, Jesus had a great deal to say about the Jerusalem
Temple. His activity in Jerusalem, as one would expect, was centered
around the Temple, though He did not treat it at all in the way which was
expected of the messiah. The messiah, more than likely, would have been
expected to honor the Temple.

However, when it came to the Temple of Jerusalem, Jesus did
and said some rather interesting things. The things He said and did were
not necessarily directed against the Temple itself, as it, though a symbol of something
much larger, was merely a building.
Rather, Jesus’ words were directed against the Temple authorities, who seemingly
wielded the presence of a building and what it was meant to represent and
contain, against the people of Israel, so as to preserve their own power and
position.

With that frame of mind created, one can look at one of the
stories recounted in the Gospel of Mark as fairly representative of that which can
be seen in both Matthew and Luke. In the
eleventh chapter of Mark it is said that “Jesus entered the Temple area and
began to drive out those who were selling and buying in the Temple
courts. He turned over the tables of the money changers and the chairs of
those selling doves, and He would not permit anyone to carry merchandise
through the Temple courts” (11:15-16).

This disruption in business would have had an obvious impact
on the sellers, as they would be losing money by being unable to carry out
their trade for a period of time. In and of itself, such action is not a
critique of the activity of buying and selling (though one could question the
legitimacy and necessity of the way in which the sacrificial cult was in
operation in that day) but of the greed and corruption that would so often be
the companion of the commerce.

Regardless, the disruption would certainly create some
enemies for Jesus, as shutting down the buying and selling also shuts down the
operations of the Temple, effectively shutting down the Temple itself. Not only is this having an effect on
livelihoods, but this is something of a symbolic pronouncement against the Temple,
as Jesus actively calls into question not what was there taking place, but rather
the ongoing need for the Temple.

Additionally and as would be expected, the disruption would
have had an impact on the finances of the Temple authorities, as they would
have had a stake in each transaction made within the Temple in relation to the sacrificial
cult. Thus, more enemies for Jesus.
These are more powerful enemies than the merchants who plied their
business at the pleasure of the Temple authorities. Thirdly, Jesus might
very well have been taking a chance at angering the people, and turning the
populace in general against Him, as they would have been unable to buy the
necessary items to make what they understood to be their necessary offerings,
thus jeopardizing their right-standing with their God (their covenant status).

However, it would seem that the potential for anger amongst
the commoners was quickly diffused, which can be seen when one encounters Jesus’
words in which He said, “Is it not written: ‘My house will be called a house of
prayer for all nations’? But you have turned it into a den of robbers!”
(11:17b) In this, Jesus apparently reveals to the people that the
merchants in the Temple, in collusion with the Temple authorities, had
conspired together to cheat the people through false dealings in their
money-changing and sale of animals.Beyond that, it is possible that there is an implication that the Temple
authorities were cheating the people through their insistence that the
sacrifices were a continuing necessity.